On 14/06/2011 Doug Bruce wrote:>>Not really a valid comparison. Two completely different situations.
Not so, both are rock climbs with the same consequences if the anchor failed - death. But, apparently, one should be bolted, the other not. The only difference is one is at Araps the other the Warrumbungles.

>However, given that there was/is a rat's nest of tat at that particular belay, indicating>that people frequently retreat at this point for one reason or another,>why shouldn't that retreat be via a more permanent, safer, easier to use>and access station?
No reason what so ever. But why is the answer always the drilling of holes? If it can take tat, it could take cable or chain, with no holes, eaiser to replace when required, and in 50 years time, no pox like rash of old chopped bolts. NB - I haven't seen the anchor in question, so I only assume it could take chain/cable due to the presence of tat.

>From what I can gather, there is no effect on the actual climbing. Or>have I misread this?
My gripe is not with the climbing, my gripe is the knee jerk reaction that putting bolts in is the only option ever considered.

>I'm hoping to do the route on my way home to Tassie>and don't anticipate any difficulties completing it, so I guess I'll get>a better look at the issue then if the weather gods are kind.

>why is the answer always the drilling of>holes? If it can take tat, it could take cable or chain, with no holes,>eaiser to replace when required, and in 50 years time, no pox like rash>of old chopped bolts.
I like your argument: you've convinced me ...

It seems the views of a good number of people that have climbed in the warrumbungles align with the park Plan of Management in so far as:

"Controls are imposed where necessary to protect plant and animal communities of
environmental significance, to protect fragile geological structures, to prevent rock
climbing in close proximity to walking tracks and to maintain the adventure climbing
experience." (p 23)
and
"The marking of climbs and the bolting of new climbing routes will not be permitted." (p 25)http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/parks/pomfinalwarrumbungle.pdf

Couldn't be clearer so lets not see any more bolts added up there (replacing dangerous existing gear is OK in the POM). It is not a new concept to climb in an area in accordance with formal management plans. In fact to not do so runs the real risk of spoiling it for everyone and potentially causing access problems.

On 15/06/2011 MichaelF wrote:>It seems the views of a good number of people that have climbed in the>warrumbungles align with the park Plan of Management in so far as:>>"Controls are imposed where necessary to protect plant and animal communities>of>environmental significance, to protect fragile geological structures,>to prevent rock>climbing in close proximity to walking tracks and to maintain the adventure>climbing>experience." (p 23)>and>"The marking of climbs and the bolting of new climbing routes will not>be permitted." (p 25)>http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/parks/pomfinalwarrumbungle.pdf>>Couldn't be clearer so lets not see any more bolts added up there (replacing>dangerous existing gear is OK in the POM). It is not a new concept to climb>in an area in accordance with formal management plans. In fact to not do>so runs the real risk of spoiling it for everyone and potentially causing>access problems.

That is what has been done in this instance. Manky ugly junk replaced with a solid anchor. Previous and new anchors both fixed. If there is a backpack of sling something has to be done.

I can't be bothered to dig up the old thread but poster jrc i think put forward the point that with modern protection and the knowledge the path is there that many fixed bits of protection do not need to be replaced. This is very subjective but I think this is a move forward. Certain single bolt belays could do with an upgrade others dispensed with.

On re-read the tone of my last couple of posts was forceful and out of character with the nature of the discussion - apologies for that. It just seems like a critical time to establish what people want to experience in the Warrumbungles in terms of climbing up there in the long term.

On 9/06/2011 nmonteith wrote:>On 9/06/2011 MichaelF wrote:>>So why the need for another formalised descent?>>The Green Glacier descent could potentially be very nasty in bad weather.>There is a lot of downclimbing involved - whilst a simpler rap route straight>down CR could be a lot of safer.>
I have been stormed off Crater Bluff upon topping out. We descended via the standard descent route of Green Glacier before the addition of that bolt, and it was a flowing creek at the time!
It was OK however we had to be careful, and I did not feel that the risk was unacceptable to downclimb in those conditions.
The thought of descending Cornerstone Rib did not occur to us, as it would have involved more abseils and additional jiggery pokery, compared to some straight forward simple (albeit careful), downclimbing.

>I find it intriguing that no-one complained when new bolted rap anchors>were installed right at the top of the Green Glacier (next to a good tree)>on a section where most people could comfortably downclimb.>
I have always been in two minds about the installation of that anchor. I have kept my peace regarding it, as I figure saving the tree was worth it.
I suspect that if I dredged up the thread concerning it, I reckon I could find a post or two on it questioning the need for the anchor.

>When is the cut-off year for new hardware - are retrobolts placed before>1975 acceptable but anything after that not? That's the problem with Andrew>proclaiming a list of enforceable rules - you actually have to follow them.

I think the isssue is more about what has become the time honoured 'acceptable standard' (that also happens to align with the POM), vs the 'new age reduce all risk standard' seemingly imposed upon us by one of our own.

Regarding original Warrumbungles climbing history and anchors...
~> Dr Dark and Dot Butler were pro active in removing anchors! They even went so far as to try and burn down the natural top anchors*, before downclimbing the first descent of the Green Glacier route ;-)

On 15/06/2011 widewetandslippery wrote:>On 15/06/2011 MichaelF wrote:>>Couldn't be clearer so lets not see any more bolts added up there (replacing>>dangerous existing gear is OK in the POM). It is not a new concept to>climb in an area in accordance with formal management plans. In fact to not do>>so runs the real risk of spoiling it for everyone and potentially causing>>access problems.>>That is what has been done in this instance. Manky ugly junk replaced>with a solid anchor. Previous and new anchors both fixed. If there is a>backpack of sling something has to be done.>
The vast majority of climbers who do that route, top out successfully.
From a statistical standpoint, if some (would be great to say most, but I am not that hopeful), of them adopted the ethic of cleaning the tatt as they went, there would be no problem.
Further; If 'most' did this, then the majority of ascents would never see tatt on the route and would be unaware that it could ever be an issue at all.